Tuesday, November 27, 2012

An Open Letter to Libertarians: Don't Be Fooled By Rand Paul

Dear Libertarians,

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul that appears to be missed by many. Ron Paul was not hungry to be president of the United States. If he would have been hungry, he would have booted his grandson in-law and that entire gang out early on in the primaries when it was clear they were positioning themselves not to advance Ron Paul and liberty, but to advance their own careers. Ron Paul just wasn't that hungry to do that and be president. He was satisfied getting the libertarian message out.

Rand Paul is different. It appears that he wants to be president. Wanting to be president changes a man, wherever they start off from.

If you want to become president, you have one thing in mind, you need to get to 50.1% If you hold libertarian views and run on those views you are not going to be president. I dare anyone to run on completely libertarian principles and believe they are going to win. Go ahead. Tell voters you are in favor of legalizing heroin and LSD. Tell them that the U.S. government should default on its debt and relieve taxpayers of the burden. Tell them you want to end welfare and food stamps. Tell them you want to end the DEA, TSA, FDA, DOE, FAA, SEC, CFTC and the rest of the government alphabet soup agencies.

Every time I point out Rand moves that are away from liberty, I get emails and comments telling me I am too harsh on Rand. I received many again today because of this post (Scroll down to the comments).

What these commenters are looking at are Rand's pro-liberty stances, i.e. he says he is against raising taxes and for cutting government spending. Whoopee, that would have been great if he stopped there and been consistent, but he didn't stop and that is the problem. He isn't going to get himself in much trouble with the masses in moving towards 50.1% by being against higher taxes--and just saying this, this early in the 2016 race, helps make him stronger with his libertarian and Tea Party base. But notice what else he said. He said he would be in favor of reforming the tax code, in response to a question about closing loopholes.

Republicans condemn them as major barriers to the implementation of a more business- and investor-friendly flat tax. Even free market economists oppose tax loopholes as inefficient and “non-neutral” to the market economy’s allocation of resources–as if there existed an optimal pattern of coercive redistribution of income from productive, private taxpayers to parasitic, political tax-consumers that was neutral to the market.

Salerno then pointed out what Mises said about loopholes:

Needless to say Ludwig von Mises, who never took his eye off of the larger politico-economic issue of capitalism versus socialism, freedom versus statism, did not share the modern aversion to tax loopholes founded on baseless economistic concerns about “ efficiency” and “tax neutrality.”..

[Mises said] “Capitalism breathes through those loopholes.”

The issue shouldn't be about reforming the tax code. It should be about lowering taxes, right from where they are now. When Rand talks about tax reform, he is talking code to his new supporters, Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin and the like. They all know that tax reform always ends up raising taxes. It did under Ronald Reagan and it sure as hell would under the crew now in Washington. Rand also mentioned "saving" social security, in the video clip at my earlier post.

This isn't the first time "libertarians" were all in on "saving" social security. Here's Murray Rothbard on the last time "libertarians" and Republicans teamed up to "save" Social Security:

We should also say a word about another of Ronnie [Reagan]’s great "libertarian" accomplishments. In the late 1970’s, it became obvious even to the man in the street that the Social Security System was bankrupt, kaput. For the first time in fifty years there was an excellent chance to get rid of the biggest single racket that acts as a gigantic Ponzi scheme to fleece the American taxpayer. Instead, Reagan brought in the famed "Randian libertarian" Alan Greenspan, who served as head of a bipartisan commission, performing the miracle of "saving Social Security" and the masses have rested content with the system ever since. How did he "save" it? By raising taxes (oops "premiums"), of course; by that route, the government can "save" any program. (Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket.)

Rand also commented that, under his supposed lower tax scheme, the economy would grow quicker and result in even higher revenues for government. How is this small government thinking? Can you imagine Ron Paul ever saying, "Well my plan will be good because it might increase government revenues even more."

In the clip, Rand also talked about making the Republican Party a bigger party. Just how is he going to do that? By an outreach program promoting more libertarian views, in conjunction with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and John McCain? Oh yeah.

Bottom line: Watch more than the libertarian talk from Rand, he will use it when he can and when it won't hurt him going into 2016. Watch Rand on the edge, where he can be hardcore libertarian like his father or be signalling to the Republican establishment. As we get closer and closer to 2016, it will be easier to spot Rand support moving toward intrusive government measures, that's the only way he will get anywhere close to 50.1%.

And don't think Rand is going to snooker the elitists and then become libertarian when he becomes president. The elitists don't like those kind of games.

They sit you down when you have a reasonable chance of winning and tell you what they expect, and you better not cross them. Ask former presidential candidate Gary Hart, he was going to do a movie about "The Talk." Guess who shut that movie idea down.

No libertarian is going to get elected president until a lot more people start thinking favorably about libertarianism. As I said, libertarians can run for office, if they want, but only if they speak principle and lose. It is the Rand Paul types that are dangerous. They will cast themselves as libertarians, but at the same time, to get elected, they will talk increased government interventionism by promoting "tax reform," "saving" social security and other sneaky interventionist moves.

As Rothbard put is about the last "savers" of social security:

The way Reagan-Greenspan saved Social Security is a superb paradigm of Reagan’s historical function in all areas of his realm; he acted to bail out statism and to co-opt and defuse any libertarian or quasi-libertarian opposition.

Let's not let it happen this time, in any shape or form, with any expansionary government proposals or plans, by anyone. Let's stay principled and call out politicians who are hungry to get elected and veer from the liberty message--even Rand Paul. Liberty shouldn't be co-opted by anyone, in anyway at anytime. The only way Rand would ever get elected president in the current environment is if he bows to the elitists and he becomes their tool. The only value he is to us then is to point out, as an object lesson, how he veers from true libertarian principle.

116 comments:

Don't listen to Wenzel. He supports IP and therefore isn't a pure libertarian. It is destructive to have an impure mind like Wenzel's claiming to be a libertarian. He will ruin the movement. We should only support pure libertarians, since anti-IP is the only True libertarian stance.

Oh geez, the only "True" way? Stop turning libertarianism into a religion. Or acting quite totalitarian by demanding things have to be your version, or they are wrong. Libertarianism is supposed to be about fighting that. Attacking those who have a few different views than you is completely in opposition to the movement, and hurts it much more than being anti-IP. Remember Rothbard was a big-tent libertarian.

That being said, I agree with Wenzel on Rand Paul. The last thing we need is people calling his overly statist ideas libertarian or free market.

I see your point. When someone like Rand Paul is called "Libertarian", liberal opponents can brand the neocon things he does as being libertarian. It reminds me of when people refer to the Nixon-induced HMO/PPO healthcare system as being "free market".

Still, Rand seems to be about the best we have in the Senate. As soon as a candidate with better bonafides runs against him in Kentucky, I'll be happy to endorse that candidate. In the meantime, I'm happy to at least see a guy say the right things. That seems rare enough.

I believe your zealousness for "exposing" Rand Paul has led you to distort and mischaracterize his record. While some of your posts about him have raised good points, more recently, your posts have exhibited extreme Rand Paul paranoia. In my eyes -- and I think in the eyes of some of the other commenters you refer to -- this pursuit damages your credibility. I cannot take you seriously when you post about Rand Paul because you tell half-truths and make libelous statements -- see that early video as a prime example!

In short, you have an unhinged obsession with destroying the most libertarian senator we have (even though I understand he doesn't live up to your standard of libertarianism). And although you seem to see it as your duty to purge the liberty movement of the unholy Rand Pauls of the world, you do so to the liberty movement's detriment. Your efforts are counterproductive and only serve to fracture the few friends of liberty that actually exist.

As I've commented before, the day all senators are no more statist than Rand Paul will be a great day. When that happens, THEN we can engage in this banal libertarian hair-splitting. Until then, don't forget to take those paranoia meds twice daily. And enjoy that isolated libertarian plot you inhabit.

He doesn't want to "destroy" Rand- he wants to distance himself (and real libertarians) from the toxic "half-measures" that Rand is embracing.

Is Rand Paul the closest to libertarian in the Senate? Yes, no doubt. Does he represent the real libertarian position of non-aggression? Not by half. He is buying into the "beltway libertarian" bullshit, and risks tainting us all when it blows up in his face.

I notice you have not bothered presenting any valid counter-arguments against Robert Wenzel's points; instead just exhibiting the same kind of "paranoia" against Robert Wenzel you accuse him of having, by attacking his methods or motives.

It's cognitive dissonance to look right over Wenzel's message just to satisfy yourself in your stubborn Rand-apologism.

The fact that you call Rand the "most libertarian" politician you have, doesn't mean jack-all; anymore than claiming Ronald Reagan was the most "libertarian" president in the last 50 years. Measured by WHAT?

It is the credibility of YOU people that is shot in the eyes of actual libertarians. Wenzel's credibility is just fine with experienced libertarians when it comes to his views on Rand Paul. Actual libertarians have long ago seen Wenzel's point without even needing him to underline it once again.

If he didn't endorse Romney, the Republican Party would have raked him over the coals for being disloyal. He is obviously looking to the future, whereas his father did not endorse Romney, since he had no aspirations for the presidency.

here is a couple of my MAIN problems:why is the daily paul voting this down from the front page?why are people defending Rand(and every senator) vote to kill civilian Iranians with sanctions?

are you really auguring that sanctions in Iraq ended great with 500,000 children starving to death...that Ron Paul voted against!?

how is an letter basically saying:keep your guard up freedom lovers and make sure the guys with the same last name stays true.

is Rand better than the rest of the senators? YESbut what does that really prove when 99% of them are flip flopping criminals in suites?

YOU WILL NEVER VOTE YOURSELF FREE.

live free now and wake up others to do the same!

the Rep party would rather LOOSE than put in a gop candidate that will "mess up the status quo" OR they will corrupt Rand to teh core were libertarianism will be blamed when he INCREASES gov...those are the 2 options for 2016.

you don't need a king...oh i mean president anyway. Government is irrelevant, its incompetent and is the biggest BULLY the world have ever seen!

the hearts and minds of the sleeping 95% populous has to wake up before REAL change will occur.

until then educate, educate and live free. rand is good hes not great and this article was NOT a bashing, it was more of a inconvenient truth for the freedom movement that thinks it can vote its self free...the GOP and the Dems are top down corrupt parties and YOUR NOT in it...the power hungry will NEVER let the power go!

Alternatives are posed by libertarians all over the place. If you choose a violent system over an alternative that you are either too lazy to look up or too impatient or unwilling to embrace, that is not anybody's problem but your own.

What you are willing to do libertarian values is what defines how much of a libertarian you really are.

@AnonymousNovember 27, 2012 11:54 PMWere you listening?? Rand Paul being "the best we have in the Senate" and saying "the rights things" is a seriously damaging thing for the liberty/libertarian movement. This guy stands to undermine Ron Paul's message far more than any George Bush or Mitt Romney out there.

To an extent, I agree, but Mr. Wenzel, you seem to go out of your way to attack Rand, like this; "Rand also enthusiastically endorsed elitist loser Mitt Romney". When did he enthusiastically endorsed Romney? He didn't in that clip or any other clip I've seen. Even when he actually endorsed Romney it was obviously not with enthusiasm. There are many more instances I could point to where you go out of your way to make Rand look worse then he actually presents himself in an article/youtube/etc. You could very well be right about Rand but attacking him for the sake of attacking him isn't fruitful. I would call him what he is; the most limited government leaning senator. (not saying much but still)Like you say people are not at the point of voting libertarian so instead of getting another Bush, Obama/Romney at least Rand could be palatable. He would be the least of the two evils on any ticket we are going to see in the near future.

I'm not disputing he endorsed Romney, but "enthusiastic" is not the word I would use to describe that video. "Uncomfortable" or "reluctant" are the words that come to my mind when watching it. Hannity acting gleeful, Rand wishing he wasn't there kissing ass.

Ron Paul was the least of ALL evils, and it didn't get him the nomination, did it?

Once again, Wenzel made the point that in order for people to be willing to even vote for Rand, he must become MORE EVIL than he presents himself to be now. This is what the apologists don't seem to get.

So when you say "Rand is the lesser of two evils", you're not talking about the current Rand, but the Rand that needs to become even more of a traitor to values of peace and liberty than he currently is. By the time that's happened, he may as well be wearing a Romney mask, and even Romney didn't win.

Rand endorsed Romney and campaigned for him because he wants executive fiat to carry out the liberty agenda. In order to gain it you need to be a good party man or at least show you are. If he didnt endorse Romney he would be attacked by neocon infilitrators for not being loyal. wake up.

Rand knows he has to appeal to as many people as possible, first on the list is the Iowa Republican/social con (a strange beast that should be studied carefully), then the so called liberty loving New Hampshire people who made Romney and McCain their nominee (another strange beast) then SC social cons again, once he has those sewn up then he has the nomination. Then comes the flip flops and distortions to appeal to the swing state voter, the suburban mom's in Ohio and Colorado who don't care much about Rothbardian libertarian theory, you know, he has to get those votes then he has the presidency and with it he can do some pretty good stuff.

I think that we should be in favor of securing *as much liberty as we can* in the here and now. Someone like Rand becoming president would be a huge gain for liberty. It wouldn't have to be the end-all be-all goal post for the libertarian movement. & by the way, Rand is much better than Ronald Reagan. Reagan was all about the 'war on drugs'. Rand on the other hand recently spoke favorably about the legalization of cannabis in Washington and Colorado and said that the federal government should keep their hands off. How would it be worse for liberty to have someone who holds those kind of views than it would be having 4 more years of someone like Romney or Obama? Like I said, if we did manage to get him in - which would be no easy task by the way - there's no reason why libertarians would have to say "Mission Accomplished!" and stop advocating for complete liberty. All it would mean is that we'd be much freer and our lives much improved in the mean time.

If Rand runs in 2016 (and stays close to the libertarian line) I will support him, but make no mistake- he is NOT a true libertarian, and if his mixed views become closely aligned with Real Liberty (in the Rothbardian sense) then it will put our movement back tremendously.

His "half-measures" are dangerous. I'm glad Bob is calling him out for his bullshit.

Because they don't have a right to life as long as someone else must be rendered a physical slave to serve their needs. Nobody has a right to force anyone to be a subservient to any other person, and that includes unborn children.

Next step is to ban sports or smoking or unhealthy food for pregnant women because it may harm the health of the baby she's been made a slave to. After all, the child didn't ASK to be put in that body, right? So if abortion is murder, doing anything dangerous to its health is putting the safety of the unborn at risk against its will. A woman's right to her own body is suspended.Why not right away start laying out a 9 month lifestyle plan for every pregnant mother to make sure she is a proper slave to the unborn's needs?

The unborn have no right to live, because the ONLY way they can live is at the expense of another.

"Nobody has a right to force anyone to be a subservient to any other person, and that includes unborn children."

Hmmm...there's the small issue of the "subservient" one having caused the dependency in the first place.

So the question in my mind is when does it become a crime to kill someone when you've put them in the position of having committed the crime of trespassing against you?(or being dependent for a period of time)

Very tough question indeed....Block's theory of evictionism doesn't quite do it for me under the notion of respecting the right to life, which is VERY important in libertarian ethos. If the subservient one had no role is causing the crime to take place(like rape) via the criminal trespass I'd probably be OK with abortion(under those circumstances).

Is it a crime against the fetus still? Yea, I think it is...but it's a problem of which victim gets to retain their rights...not a case where the "victim" self imposed the violating of her own rights.

Politics is like football... it's won by yards gained towards the endzones of statism or liberty. People who bag on Rand Paul are utterly delusional if they think they're going to win the game with a hail mary pass when we're down by 10 touchdowns. I understand your concern about Rand co-opting our issues or half addressing them in his quest to compromise with the powers that be to advance our political goals... but you're an utter moron if you really think that Rand's end goals are not our own. The difference between Rand and the Rand haters is that Rand is actually a politician and understand how the game works... those of you who throw him under the bus are so blinded by idealism that you can't see that you're shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that you advocate Libertarians losing elections as a better alternative to libertarian republicans winning them just shows how unrealistic you are about achieving your goals.

I like what you have to say here, but think calling people "morons" is no way to persuade. This has been a great article and an even greater discussion. I myself am conflicted about Rand Paul. It is hard to look past his father's legacy, which I think we all can agree is amazing. I am sometimes disappointed in Rand's stances. I also understand how some argue Rand understands politics and what needs to be done to take liberty to the next step, which will be small. Liberty certainly will not get crammed down the country's throat; hence the football analogy that I enjoyed. I agree Rand is better then any potential Republican nominee for 2016, but I also agree he is not openly libertarian enough.

I seriously doubt Rand has the same end goals as libertarians. He was given many opportunities in interviews to talk about the issues and has come short on almost all fronts. But I guess I'm just another moron who doesn't value or understand the importance of Rand secretly working within the system on our behalf. That's what I call idealism, to trust and hope a good one will come to power, just like Reagan.Rand clearly is not as knowledgeable about business cycles or statist history, the only ammo libertarians hold. Either that or he doesn't have the backbone to stand for what he believes in. Either way it is a recipe for disaster.

Your football analogy works perfect. The team that focuses on the opposing end-zone as its only goal is more likely to achieve results. The team that focuses solely on gaining increments is more likely to be caught off guard and give the opposing running back a chance to rush to the end-zone.Running backs always focus on the goal (the constitution) not increments (a harmless sprinkle of statism).

As a football fan, I really dig your analogy Anonymous @ November 28, 2012 1:10 AM. But hey, if libertarian purists keep throwing enough Hail Marys, one of them has to work, right? Actually, no. They'll probably just lose every time.

Rand is incredibly well read and smart, he was brought up by Ron and has lived campaigns with him. Look at his reading list on paul.senate.gov. Look at his filibuster of PATRIOT Act and NDAA, look at his record, his budget and so on. Rand isnt going to "SPEAK" pure theory to the sheeple through the media and in interviews so when you see him and are disappointed he didnt get into a deep discussion about how the business cycle played out in 1937 remember he is trying to appeal to the "low information voter" i.e the dumb people who vote.

You say that "There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul that appears to be missed by many." I think you are wrong. Most people know that Rand is not his father and has never claimed to be a libertarian. I think that your readers are finally getting tired of you trying to distort every little thing he says to try and make him out to be a statist, which he clearly isn't. You clearly, as evidenced by your remarks to the interview that you posted today, mis-characterize and smear him.

I do believe this behavior has lost you credibility, it has in my eyes for one, and apparently I'm not the only one of your readers who shares those sentiments. I've been incredulous at times when I read your comments about Rand, the obsession just doesn't make any sense.

I wonder how you reconcile your belief that Ron Paul is as principled he is, and yet he would support his statist son (statist in your eyes). Do you really think Ron Paul, who knows his own son better than probably anyone else on the planet, would really support him if he was as bad as you make him out to be? If Rand is in fact the statist that you claim, then what to make of Ron for supporting him? How do you reconcile that? Please address. For one to hold both of those views seems inconsistent to me.

You make some good points, but how does one reconcile what you say with voting for sanctions on Iran? I understand your point about baby steps and that Rand opposes NDAA, which is excellent, but isn't sanctions baby steps in the wrong direction?

And if you vote for Rand and he turns out to make decisions that cost lives, you'll have blood on your hands for your backing of someone you admit you know is not Ron Paul.

It won't wash away.

Many of us like our hands CLEAN, even at the cost of any liberty some of us already know is not going to come in our lifetime anyway, whether through politics or through anything else.Putting our hope in another charlatan, in order to get some scraps, while he may start wars, continue the war on drugs or do god knows what else that will cost lives, making us complicit in it?No thank you.

Eh... It is *you* guys that come here to tut-tut Robert Wenzel and others for rejecting Rand Paul and politics in general, and wasting your breath.Not the other way around.

Go ahead and vote. Notice nobody's holding a gun to your head. Just for the love of God stop whining already about Wenzel writing articles criticizing and/or exposing Rand Paul. Deal with the fact that a lot of libertarians not only don't see politics as the solution, but actually see it as further aggravating the problem and will say so.

To answer your question, i DON'T care about politicians. I care about what libertarianism stands for being diluted and/or tarnished by association, to the point where guys like Elliot Spitzer are now even calling Mitt Romney a "libertarian".

And to once again underline the point i made various times someone uses the tired bromide of "purism", i was willing to vote for Ron Paul *despite* him not being "pure" either.

And by the way, i notice you didn't deny that you as a voter will be responsible for whatever Rand Paul ends up doing, precisely because you knew in advance he is NOT Ron Paul.Good for you that you can hide behind a powerful politician when the times comes.

You can't reform our corrupt congress by taking baby steps toward constitutional principles. Ron Paul and libertarians are supposed to be that rock that represents the in-elasticity of our constitution. Supporting Rand is no different than supporting a neo-con that holds some libertarian views (Cheney has softened on social conservatism for example).Rand is the most libertarian in senate, but he still positioned himself so far from his father that he is still just the smartest kindergartener, Ron being the adult. Rand for example will never touch the issue of states rights of secession, while Ron if questioned would take the opportunity to inform the questioner about constitutional history vs. statist history and frame the answer around Austrian economic principles.

Rand doesn't have the knowledge or BALLS to take on controversy like his dad. All he would do if he had power is mis-step and set a burgeoning freedom movement behind.

The hardcore social con in Iowa and the suburban mom in Colorado and Ohio, the votes Rand needs to be president dont give a sh&t about austrian theory and really don't want to hear it. Rand will speak a different language to those people not pure economic theory.

Also Ron wasn't for ending the Fed with a stroke of a pen, or ending social security with a stroke of a pen he wanted incremental change. So I suppose he betrayed Bob too.

I agree with Robert. If Rand Paul runs for president, I will likely do what I did this year: stay home. If he wanted my worthless one-man vote, he'd have to back it up with a spectacular voting record that closely matches his father's.

Rand may not be his father, but if he wants to be a small part of the solution, he needs to hold close to the efforts that Ron made. The country is decaying rapidly and is likely on the brink of disaster (which could hold great potential for the future if the public grows brains). This is no time to compromise with low-life politicians who've made a career of pimpdom.

Our only goal as part of the Liberty movement is to advance our agenda. Failure to advance our agenda means there is no movement.

Rand Paul understands this. You cannot have a movement and advance your agenda if you ONLY LOSE. Yes, Rand is about winning because winning allows the ball to move forward towards liberty just a little bit more.

Those who wanted radical socialism advanced their agenda over more than 100 years. They understood that when you win, you advance your agenda just a little bit at a time, incrementally over decades. No, they were not always honest about it either, they said whatever got them elected. This is how we arrived at the present, with a monstrous, oversized government.

Sadly you must fight fire with fire. Education is something non-politicians must focus on, but if you are serious about actually advancing the liberty agenda, you MUST WIN!

Rand WANTS to become president period. All you people justifying his actions better start smelling the coffee and wake up. I saw this coming when he became senator. Rand is extremely ambitious. You can see the ambition in his eyes. And yes I've met him, seen him, talked with him and my gut instinct was dead right: Rand is crafty, ambitious and a career politician. And I'm VERY politically seasoned and I'll leave it there. The liberty movement needs to wake up to the fact that Rand is NOT his father and he is a politician. He will say, do and act in which ever way to garner favors, votes and a favorable image not just from the Republican elite and the media, but from the grassroots as well. My advice: watch his record VERY CAREFULLY. Don't get suckered in. 2016 is a LONG ways away to make decisions this hastily.

Go look at his record then, go look at his $500 bn cutting budget, his filibuster of the NDAA and PATRIOT ACT, his anti-TSA bills, his calls for cuts to military spending, please go and look at his record...

I guess I don't understand the strategy of the Wenzels of the liberty movement. Is it to talk pure libertarian politics all day every day, loudly blasting the Rand Pauls, until one day the police, the military, the IRS, and the Nancy Pelosis of the world suddenly decide to leave the rest of us alone? Why is incremental progress selling out? Would it be selling out to choose between a punch in the face and a punch in the arm, hoping someday you can talk them down to a light slap?

Seriously, do you all really think that if you talk Rothbard enough the statists in power will voluntarily abdicate without any incremental progress beforehand? Or would you just rather live under a more oppressive regime with your badge of purity than under a less oppressive regime and have to come down a bit from your high horse?

You have to think like a contrarian: as libertarians it's better that the Democrats are in charge when the banking system and the welfare state collapses so that socialism and liberalism will take the blame rather than laizze faire capitalism. Remember, the fact that the general public and the court journalists still believe in the left-right paradigm, however misinformed they are, has significant consequences. I'd rather have a buffoon like Joe Biden be the face of the collapse.

Libertarians ought to fear and abhor the state, not campaign to run it. Remember, we're talking about trillions of dollars of transfer payments that 100's of millions of people's lives depend on, Total Information Awareness systems that hold so much data we don't know what to do with it or who's doing what with it, the dawn of drone technology which will make the nature of war more microscopic yet more brutal and intrusive, Black Swan events that cause stampedes in the financial markets, and international hatreds boiling underneath the surface of a Pax Atomica. No individual in Congress or the Presidency, especially a guy like Rand Paul who spends most of his political career trying to simultaneously win the affection of Bill Kristol and the Cato Institute, can rein in the major trends in our society society.

Bush was the face of the collapse still over half of people who voted 3 weeks ago blame him and im betting in 4 years it will be much the same. Obama will say hey i gave it my best shot and will be out campaigning and grinning with whoever the democrat nominee is. Bush did irreparable harm to the GOP brand with his various sell outs and bailouts.

Rand is a neocon in reverse, if he gets executive fiat he will use it in a way to advance liberty.

In order to get it he has to fool the mass of social cons in Iowa, SC and rely on the FSP in New Hampshire, then hope the economy sucks enough and that he can appeal to the suburban mom in Ohio and beat his democrat opponent. It's a long arduous road of lies and spin but if he gets power he will use the executive fiat in the "right" way. That is all we can hope for. There wont be a big bang of closing social security like some dream of, people need to be weaned off welfare and it would never get through congress but think of some of the things a liberty president could do with executive fiat, the appointments and being CIC allows him to close bases, write the budget and so on. But remember he would be restricted by congress and what he can get past those crooks but still he would be able to do a lot of good with just the executive fiat IMO. Rand has no illusions he will be able to close SS, MEDICARE, the FED and so on.

The only "fair tax" is a rate of zero. As Murray Rothbard proposed, we should have a head tax, fixed at a low level, and call it a day. The low head tax would make it quite difficult for the government to grow to gargantuan, liberty-sapping levels through increased tax revenue. As a result, government would have to shrink dramatically (to its Constitutional limits), but isn't that what we "say" we want - government off our backs and out of our way.

So far NONE of the apologists has in any way tried to provide logical counter-arguments to the points Wenzel has made in the above article, instead focusing on his overall treatment of Rand, as if Rand is a little baby that needs protection from the big bad Robert Wenzel (that Rand Paul has probably never even heard of, with all due respect).Or as if Wenzel just doesn't "get it" that Rand is so crafty that he is fooling the neocon establishment into supporting him, while he is obviously not "fooling" the apologists.

Of course they want to have their cake and eat it too, because at the same time it is supposed to be OBVIOUS that he has the same goals as us libertarians, even though the neocons aren't supposed to actually see that.

The conservatives that are supposed to vote for Rand in 2016, however, could not muster enough to vote Romney into the white house despite four years of Obama disaster, after clearly choosing Romney over the freedom-loving Ron Paul.Yet somehow Rand is a prime candidate for 2016 that libertarians could be proud of, and that people that rejected Ron Paul and could not get Romney into the white house will get behind.

America started out with a constitution and as a free nation. 200+ years of politics has gotten America the state it's in today. The Libertarian Party never made a dent; Goldwater lost. Ron Paul was beaten by Romney.Reagan spoke a good libertarian game and proved, once in power, to be a interventionist and a state-grower.

YAY for the political solution.

And somehow WE are supposed to be the naive, idealistic suckers.

Get over it. You will not achieve substantially more freedom in your lifetime, and most certainly not through the system, which was always meant to be rigged in favor of the state. You will only help tarnish libertarian credibility by pretending Rand Paul represents the movement and come out disillusioned. The ONLY thing you can do that may make a difference in the long run is principled behavior, education, and the proper raising of your kids.

So, what does libertarian credibility matter if the system won't change, besides the smug self-satisfaction of knowing I'm more awesome than those other libertarians? And what is Wenzel actually proposing that we are supposed to counter? All I hear it this: if you just keep talking "pure" libertarianism, sooner or later the state will voluntarily disband, even though a strong majority (currently all) of the politicians will be statists. Is that the grand plan you find infallible?

What we are proposing is that it is better to have more-libertarian politicians than less-libertarian politicians, and that itself is beneficial. Given more-libertarian politicians, perhaps we can find even more libertarian politicians. It's not guaranteed, but it's worth a try.

But I see your position and Wenzels as a quasi-religious obsession with establishing gospel purity rather than any attempt to actually reduce state violence against individuals. The options at this point are not no state and this state; the options at this point are less state and more state. I didn't support Romney because he didn't represent less state. But I support Rand Paul because he represents less state than what the Republicans have been offering. That is progress.

I will gladly concede that you are a more pure libertarian than I am and will live with the risk that Our Father Rothbard will consign me to Libertarian Hell for the sin of heresy.

It has NOTHING to do with purity, but with drawing a line somewhere.If i was a purist i wouldn't have been willing to vote for Ron Paul either.

It is about completely dumb beliefs in change through a system that is rigged in favor of growth of the state, and making libertarians complicit in it by association.

If Rand Paul is your "boy", and he turns out to be the wolf that his mouth is already starting to suggest, than whatever horrible things he may end up doing will reflect on libertarians. I don't like this great PHILOSOPHY (unlike the religion that you so called "libertarians" try to smear it as being during a debate) being in any way associated with unreliable and untrustworthy politicians who have given way more reason to doubt him than trust him.

It is bad enough someone actually believes he is a libertarian. It's worse if a self-described libertarian knows that Rand isn't and still wants to support him, knowing very well that while they may vote for some baby steps in the right direction, they will also vote for more steps in the WRONG direction. Do you think you can disown those decisions as not being something you should have known? A lot of you already admitted he is not a libertarian. So you cannot claim ignorance.

What you people who insist on voting don't get is that we don't want to put our signature underneath ANYTHING that we believe may end up destroying lives or even killing people, just for a few scraps of liberty that quite frankly we don't even believe are really coming.

As a matter of fact, if your vote gives you a few scraps of more liberty, but also costs someone else his life (for instance through the drug war e.g. wrong house raids), then you've violated the non-aggression principle. Through voting you will have wielded the monopolized gun of the state to gain your own personal advantage.

If you don't care about that, then as far as i'm concerned you're not a "heretic". You'd just be another voting sheep trying to gain a personal advantage at the cost of others through the system.

Tony #2: " I don't like this great PHILOSOPHY . . . being in any way associated with unreliable and untrustworthy politicians who have given way more reason to doubt him than trust him"

Tony #2 again: "What you people who insist on voting don't get is that we don't want to put our signature underneath ANYTHING that we believe may end up destroying lives or even killing people"

Not about purity. Got it.

"Through voting you will have wielded the monopolized gun of the state to gain your own personal advantage." So, by voting for someone who will use LESS violence against me, I'm using the monopolized gun of the state to my personal advantage? That seems an odd statement. Why not consider it self-defense? They're the ones initiating the violence. I'm only trying to minimize the damage they do.

I've yet to hear anyone explain why a government filled with statists (since there will be no libertarians in it, if they listened to RW) will one day voluntarily choose to cease being a state. Will someone please explain this? Or are you content getting boned by the state to their heart's content if you get to draw the line somewhere?

I see two possible ways to reduce the state: 1) state actors do it voluntarily (by putting people in government who are less interested in using that power, such as Rand Paul, or I guess hoping Obama and those like him just give up and go home voluntarily). 2) People defend themselves from the state with counter violence (see Waco, Baghdad, Gaza, etc, if you got an instance of this that has actually worked, do tell).

The route you're choosing, Tony, is this: http://goo.gl/MpOL3

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if you pretend the state isn't there, they won't send the police after you for noncompliance.

Rand Paul is running a covert political campaign. His real political philosophy, which he does not normally espouse in public, is very much in line with his father's. His pandering to the neo-cons is a Trojan horse. His goal is to get elected and then throw the neo-cons who supported him under the bus. This, from a certain perspective, is a brilliant strategy. It is also, an extremely dangerous one, because anyone who actually attempts is will likely be killed. But then again, the patriots of old were never afraid to die for the cause of liberty. Were they?

Thank you for the caveats Mr Wenzel. The mainline GOP will need to grow via libertarians because they want to ditch the religious right. But if you are careful, they will not give you anything because the GOP has never been about small government any more than it is really pro-life. GOP assholes just need another source for the so-con foot soldiers who did the grunt work. I am pro-lifer, being wedded to the GOP has really hurt the life movement by blinding us to the pro-war militarism and empire building.

I hope libertarians are smarter. A great entrepreneur -started a TV station- said every time you compromise, you loss something and if you keep compromising, you find yourself left with nothign.

I think you're sort of arguing past those who were criticizing you. Trust me, we all understand that Rand Paul is not his father. We understand that he is not a libertarian.

What people are criticizing is the fact that you spin absolutely every Rand Paul story into a way to smear the guy. Despite his flaws (and boy does he have flaws), he also accomplishes good things and fights some good battles. In some ways, we can compare him to a guy like Alan Grayson, who libertarians championed when he was speaking on the issue of the Fed. Grayson was awful on almost every other issue, but on that particular issue, we could rally around the guy. The same can be said of Rand. Why not support him where he excels, and criticize him where he fails, rather than having this irrational negative halo effect in regards to absolutely everything that the guy does?

Again, we have no delusions about Rand. We'll sleep with one eye open as long as he holds any power.

Why not treat Rand like Grayson? Simple. No liberty-minded individual is going to be fooled into giving up precious inches of their liberty by anything that Grayson is saying. That's the danger with Rand. He has an enormous amount of built-in good-will in the eyes of the liberty movement, with which he is methodically pulling the wool over the eyes of all but the most diligent, of which Wenzel is one, thankfully.

Ron Paul has consistently said, and I am paraphrasing:1. The government will change when the people change or it can no longer control the economics.2. We will either move towards a free or more authoritarian society after the crash.3. We must educate people to understand why to restore the constitution before the crash so they can help rebuild.

Other than End the fed, what notable legislation did Ron Paul get passed? None. Why was this passed? The people were behind it. Not just one person. He was filling up the venues with thousands from both all and no parties listening to the message.

The movement was really growing until two things happened:1. Benton made his campaign ending announcement. 2. Rand came out and supported rominee BEFORE the convention.

I'm curious why everyone gives Ron Paul a pass on all of the statist positions he took. Ron Paul was not a pure rothbardian libertarian. He supported continuing social security. He supported a state-run, socialist military. He supported states rights, which is just another way of sanctioning violence on the state level. And on and on and on.

Why give Ron a pass and go after his son? And why didn't Ron Paul destroy the liberty movement with his lack of purity?

So, the fact that some people draw the line elsewhere means that they are putting their "signature[s] underneath ANYTHING that [they] believe may end up destroying lives or even killing people" while you are not?

Mr. Wenzel's thought piece ably lays out the difficulty in returning to a time of far less government. Those that wanted the 'muck' 'ooze' we find ourselves in today have gotten so many interests somehow tied to transfer payments, or as feeders, in conjunction with an in-sync media, it is easy to diminish the prospects of a Ron Paul type. His son Rand(and other 'politicians') see this, and again as Mr. Wenzel points out, effectively go with the flow to maintain and accrue power.

I was at an event a few months back with Rand. I have also taken in events with his father. Yes, they seem to be different in terms of Rand has become a creature of Washington(Washingtonitis), whereas his dad had the unusual characteristic(not totally, but for the most part) of avoiding this malady.

Liberty is not a small tent. Everyone uses liberty in a different way. Everyone has a different definition of what constitutes a "libertarian". Ron Paul's pro-life views may disqualify him from someone's definition.

The point here is that instead of isolating the liberty movement, understand that many different people will have many different strategies. Allow them to coexist. If Rand starts voting to take away your liberties, then rail against him. But give me a break - you're going to dismiss him because he doesn't pass your purity test?! What makes you think anyone else will? I see this article and discussion as wanting to complain about the problem instead of working to fix it.

I'd like to know if Mr. Wentzel would characterise himself as being a Zionist. Why would an athiest Paleolibertarian such as myself care? I watched Ron Paul being attacked for the last few years by members of the media. ALL of the nasty attacks and obviously hostile coverage came from Zionists. Don't believe me? Google for yourself.Eric Golub, Michael Medved, Ben Stein, David Horowitz, Mark Levin, Nouriel Roubini, Megan McArdle, Paul Krugman, David Frum, Gloria Berger, John King, Dana Bash, Daniel Indiviglio, John Batchelor, etc. And don't forget the Christian Zionists like Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. I'd like to get comments about Zionist media attacking Ron Paul, that I've missed.

Before the attacks on Rand Paul commence in earnest, I want to know where the patterned media hostility and attacks are coming from.

Rand Paul is a neocon in reverse. Remember Bush saying he doesnt want to be the policeman of the world. no nation building?(debates 2000) Then look what happened when he had the executive privilage. Rand is going to lie and hide his libertarian principles so he can get executive privilage then he can affect change that WE want to see. You can do a lot by executive fiat; being CIC means he can close bases and bring troops home! I doubt he can take out SS though without congress, maybe he can offer incremental change. FWIW Bob, Ron also wanted incremental change no big bang scrapping of the social programs you dream about, people need to be weaned off welfare and the Fed. Ron Paul was aware of this and so is Rand, the neocon in reverse.

To win Rand needs to appeal to your average dumb Iowa Republican, you know the ones who supported Bush. This is what guides his political calculations.

I couldn't agree with your article more! Rand showed his true character when he supported Romney. If he truly believed in freedom, he would NEVER have been able to have supported one that was identical to Obama and just as opposed to freedom. As far as I'm concerned, he's nothing but a political whore, just like the rest of the traitorous neocons. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him and never will. Personally, I thought the neocons would chew him up and spit him out as soon as they were done using him to harm his dad. After all, who can trust a traitor. Neither the neocons, nor, those that love freedom.

Let's face the facts folks.. The elite are dug in tighter then a fat girls thong. Anyone whom gets "elected" (hand picked) by these control freaks are not going to be representing We the People. We must get completely away from the one.. err, two-party system, go Green, and recycle the whole damned lot of them. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."The elite did not come all this way thru history to give up the position they're in now. Therefore, it's most likely gonna be a bloody mess!